They're talking in the check out line
The woman in front of me in line at the grocery store shared the exciting news about Saddam with the cashier when I shopped on Sunday afternoon. What fueled her enthusiasm was the fact that they "had finally captured the person responsible for 9-11."
My comment to the cashier was "not if you're a Democrat, they didn't."
The cashier saw humor in my remark. She's also the daughter of the neighbors who first introduced us to primary politics in New Hampshire. In was in their living room that we met Gary Hart, Alan Cranston and Al Gore, among others.
My friend, the cashier, still hasn't made up her mind on who she's going to vote for. She indicated that while "she's leaning towards Clark" because of his military experience, she's still listening to what they all have to say.
The primary field appears to be handling the capture in a variety of fashions. People I spoke to hope that Dean's predictions that we're no safer now than before Saddam's capture is just more of his rhetorical style; many agree with the candidates in the middle who have been speaking out on using the capture as an opportunity to increase the involvement of other nations in the process.
Everyone seems to agree that it makes Bush and his policies look better than the Democrats have been trying to make them believe, and that the follow-up news still to come with regards to the interrogation and eventual trial will be stiff competition in terms of media coverage given to the primary candidates.
It just goes to show that timing IS everything....
Thanks for posting this. I'm
Thanks for posting this. I'm reading this from far away, in Oakland CA, so I'm eager to hear what those on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire are thinking. I'm still very confused as to how anyone could think Saddam had anything to do with Sept 11. Do these people think Saddam and Osama are the same person? Granted, I've never seen them in a room together...
I agree the trial is going to suck a lot of media are away from the Dem contenders. But it's also possible it will bring up a lot of dirt that's been swept under the rug about how we supported Saddam way back when.
People I spoke to hope that Dean's predictions that we're no safer now than before Saddam's capture is just more of his rhetorical style. Are you saying that people think this is excessive? Around here, I'd say his statement is pretty much conventional wisdom.
This shows how badly
This shows how badly misinformed a lot of people are. I was very outspoken against the war in Iraq, based on very solid evidence from respected military and intelligence experts.
There were no links between Hussein and bin Laden. In fact, Bin Laden saw Hussein as part of the problem. Bin Laden saw Hussein as a corrupt Arab ruler, who murdered Islamists in Iraq, as a hypocrite. They were bitter enemies. The only "terrorist" group operated in northern Iraq,ansar al islam [?], was under control of the US "no fly zone", which was in Kurdish controlled areas. This group was not against the US. If they were, the US could have taken them out.
There were no links with al Qaeda and Hussein.
This administration spoke often of 9-11 and Iraq in the same sentence, leading many to conclude they were connected. Even Bush has admitted as such.
Yet the damage has already been done. The key is to stay better informed about current events, and not keep repeating old phrases told by politicians.